Chapter 5 CONTROL OF CHIMERA STATES IN
5.4. Discussion
There is an ever growing consensus within water management literature and practice across the world that the water sector is evolving from being a top-down, segregated, engineering-dominated field, towards a collaborative, integrated, cross-disciplinary field (Bell, 2015). This shift can be described using any number of emerging terminological framings such as IUWM, Water Sensitive Urban Design, Low Impact Development, Nature Based Solutions etc. However one common thread across all emerging paradigms is the need for increased collaboration, and therefore, stakeholder engagement. This means that institutions will increasingly need to understand the interests and priorities of their stakeholders, in order to enable more productive collaboration and engagement.
Extensive research has previously been conducted into the barriers to the adoption of IUWM and related ideologies in Australia. However no prior research has ever compared the relative
importance that is placed on these issues, across different institutional types. The current research progresses the existing body of knowledge in two three key ways.
Firstly a more list of issues affecting the implementation of IUWM is created through the
combination of the literature review and the industry consultation, and then categorised in terms of where they fit into the planning phases of: policy setting, decision analysis, and decision taking.
Categorising issues in this way is an important step towards moving somewhat abstract issues towards issues that practitioners are able to address barriers in their day-to-day work.
Importantly, the issues presented in this paper are not purely hypothetical, but have been validated through in-depth case study research that has been conducted in parallel with the current research
23 (Guthrie, et al., 2016). The references listed in section 3.2 provide interested readers with further in-depth exploration of these issues by the authors, for example on planning scales (Furlong, et al., 2016a), funding and financial regulation (Furlong, et al., 2017), and appropriate levels of
engagement (Furlong, et al., 2016c). The intention in this paper has not been to provide in-depth discussion on these issues, but rather a comprehensive and categorised list.
Secondly, this research is the first paper that quantifiably ranks the importance of different IUWM implementation issues to different institutional types in Australia. The current research has provided an initial exploration of this issue, and confirmed the hypothesis that, in general, practitioners are most concerned about issues that they deal with directly.
Results from the survey show that different institutional types have significantly different opinions around which IUWM issues are most important. This is most evident from Figure 2, which shows, for example, that water retailers and local government care primarily about analysis and design of strategies and projects, whereas state government is primarily concerned with policy setting, regulation and approvals. These priorities align directly with their work areas.
While these results are not surprising, they are certainly important. As stakeholder engagement literature has noted, it is very important to tailor engagement actions and materials to the stakeholder you are engaging with (Carson, 2008). It is equally important to move away from Habermasian, purely “fact based” and “power of the better argument” approaches to participation of the 1980’s (Healy, 2009). This is not unique to the water sector, with parallels that can be drawn to almost all professional fields including: the energy sector (Hall, et al., 2013; Jami & Walsh, 2014), community and international development (Brown & Wyatt, 2010; IDEO, 2015), and waste
management (Healy, 2009). The current research has not attempted to provide a comprehensive how-to guide for engagement within the water sector, but it does highlight the importance of tailoring engagement towards what target audiences are most interested in, which is, whatever issues they have the most contact with in their work.
Thirdly, some specific outcomes from the survey are interesting in their own right. For example when engaging with government bodies it is important to focus on responsibility and cost apportionment, and when engaging with local government it is important to focus on technical capabilities and post evaluation. Some of the results from the survey, were not expected, and could warrant further investigation including: (1) why Melbourne’s water sector, other than local
government, places a lower importance on post evaluation, and (2) why local government rankings were so drastically different to all other stakeholders, perhaps implying a lack of effective
communication channels.
These specific survey results cannot be generalised to other cities and countries. In particular, water governance arrangements vary across the world, and the organisational types presented in this study are specifically those found in Melbourne. In other cities, different stakeholder groups would be relevant, for example in many countries NGOs may have an important role in the planning of water infrastructure.
However the authors propose that the core conclusion of the research, that different institutional types place different priorities on issues depending on their exposure to those issues, can be generalised to all cities and countries. We propose that through tailoring engagement methods to
24 match stakeholder organisational priorities, planners can improve the effectiveness of collaborative and integrated planning approaches. Through this tailoring it is hoped that the water sector can advance their methods of stakeholder engagement towards a more stakeholder-centred approach.
5 Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the experts that gave up their valuable time to assist with this study.
These experts came from the following organisations AECOM, Aroona Alliance, Australian Water Association, City West Water, CSIRO, DELWP, Department of Water, E2Designlab, G&M Connellan Consultants, Hume City Council, Logan City Council, Macedon Ranges Shire, Melbourne Water, SA Water, South East Water, Sydney Water, the City of Melbourne, the Metropolitan Planning
Authority, the Monash University CRC for Water Sensitive Cities, the Office of Living Victoria, Water Corporation, WISER Analysis, and Yarra Valley Water
6 Bibliography
Allan, C. & Curtis, A., 2003. Learning to implement adaptive management. Natural Resource Management, 6(1), pp. 25-30.
Australian Water Association, 2015. State of the Water Sector Report 2015, Sydney: Australian Water Association.
Banks, M. A., 2006. Towards a continuum of scholarship: The eventual collapse of the distinction between grey and non-grey literature. Publishing Research Quarterly, 22(1), pp. 4-11.
Baumgartner, T. & Pahl-Wostl, C., 2013. UN-Water and its role in global water governance. Ecology and Society, 18(3).
Bell, S., 2015. Renegotiating urban water. Progress in Planning, Volume 96, pp. 1-28.
Berkes, F., 2009. Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), p. 1692–1702.
Bouwer, H., 2000. Integrated Water Management: Emerging issues and challenges. Agricultural Water Management, Volume 45, pp. 217-228.
Briassoulis, H., 2004. The institutional complexity of environmental policy and. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management planning problems: the example of Mediterranean desertification, 47(1), pp. 115-135.
Brookes, K., Brown, R. & Morrison, P., 2011. A case study analysis of the critical factors influencing a private land developer adopting water sensitive urban design. Porto Alegre, Brazil, 12th International Conference on Urban Drainage.
Brown, R., Ashley, R. & Farrelly, M., 2011. Political and professional agency entrapment: an agenda for urban water research. Water Resources Management, 25(15), pp. 4037-4050.
25 Brown, R., Farrelly, M. & Keath, N., 2009b. Practitioner perceptions of social and institutional
barriers to advancing a diverse water source approach in Australia. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 25(1), pp. 15-28.
Brown, R. R., 2005. Impediments to Integrated Urban Stormwater Management: The Need for Institutional Reform. Environmental Management, 36(3), pp. 455-468.
Brown, R. R. & Farrelly, M. A., 2009a. Delivering sustainable urban water management: a review of the hurdles we face. Water Science and Technology, 59(5), pp. 839-846.
Brown, T. & Wyatt, J., 2010. Design thinking for social innovation IDEO. Development Outreach, 12(1), pp. 29-31.
Carson, L., 2008. The IAP2 Spectrum: Larry Susskind in conversation with IAP2 members.
International Journal of Public Participation, 2(2), pp. 67-84.
Closas, A., Schuring, M. & Rodriguez, D., 2012. Integrated Urban Water Management - Lessons and Recommendations from Regional Experiences in Latin America, Central Asia, and Africa, Washington:
The World Bank.
Connor, R. et al., 2017. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2017. Wastewater:
The Untapped Resource, s.l.: United Nations.
Creswell, J. W., 2014. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4th ed. Three Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
CSIRO, 2010. Integrated Urban Water Management Planning Manual, Highett: Water research foundation.
de Graaf, R. E. et al., 2011. Perspectives on innovation: a survey of the Dutch urban water sector.
Urban Water Journal, 8(1), pp. 1-12.
Dobbie, M. & Brown, R., 2013. Integrated urban water management in the water-sensitive city:
Systems, silos and practitioners' risk perceptions. Water, 40(4), pp. 83-91.
Farrelly, M. & Brown, R., 2011. Rethinking urban water management: Experimentation as a way forward?. Global Environmental Change, Volume 21, p. 721–732.
Fletcher, T. D. et al., 2015. SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more–The evolution and application of terminology surrounding urban drainage. Urban Water Journal, 12(7), pp. 525-542.
Furlong, C. et al., 2017b. Key concepts for Integrated Urban Water Management infrastructure planning: Lessons from Melbourne. Utilities Policy, Volume 45, pp. 84-96.
Furlong, C. et al., 2017. Risk management, financial evaluation and funding for wastewater and stormwater reuse projects. Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 191, pp. 83-95.
Furlong, C., De Silva, S. & Guthrie, L., 2016a. Planning scales and approval processes for IUWM infrastructure. Water Policy, Volume 18, p. 783–802.
26 Furlong, C., De Silva, S., Guthrie, L. & Considine, R., 2016b. Developing a water infrastructure
planning framework for the complex modern planning environment. Utilities Policy, Volume 38, pp.
1-10.
Furlong, C., Gan, K. & De Silva, S., 2016c. Governance of Integrated Urban Water Management in Melbourne, Australia. Utilitites Policy, Volume 43, pp. 48-58.
Furlong, C., Guthrie, L. & De Silva, S., 2016d. Understanding Integrated Urban Water Management as an ideology, method and objective. Water eJournal.
Furlong, C., Guthrie, L., De Silva, S. & Considine, R., 2015. Analysing the terminology of integration in the water management field. Water Policy, Volume 17, pp. 46-60.
G. Khouri, 2006. Integrated Water Cycle Management: "An Australian Perspective". s.l.:European Water Publications.
Glaser, B. G., 1965. The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), pp. 436-445.
Global Water Partnership, 2012. Integrated urban water management, Stockholm: GWP Tec background papers.
Green, M., 2014. Smarter urban water: why Melbourne needed to catch and store. The Guardian, 30 July.
Guthrie, L., Furlong, C. & de Silva, S., 2016. Improving Planning Processes for Integrated Urban Water Management Infrastructure, Melbourne: Water Research Australia.
Hall, N., Ashworth, P. & Devine-Wright, P., 2013. Societal acceptance of wind farms: Analysis of four common themes across Australian case studies. Energy Policy, Issue 58, pp. 200-208.
Healy, S., 2009. Towards an epistemology of public participation. Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 90, pp. 1644-1654.
Huitema, D. et al., 2009. Adaptive Water Governance: Assessing the Institutional Prescriptions of Adaptive (Co-)Management from a Governance Perspective and Defining a Research Agenda.
Ecology and Society, 14(1), p. 26.
Hunt, J., Anda, M., Matthew, K. & Ho, G., 2006. A water efficiency rating system for land
developments implementing integrated urban water management. Water Supply, 6(2), pp. 1 - 7.
IDEO, 2015. The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design. 1st ed. Canada: IDEO.
Institute of Sustainable Futures, 2013. Building industry capability to make recycled water investment decisions. Sydney: s.n.
Jami, A. A. & Walsh, P. R., 2014. The role of public participation in identifying stakeholder synergies in wind power project development: The case study of Ontario, Canada. Renewable Energy, Volume 68, pp. 194-202.
27 Keremane, G. B., Wu, Z. & McKay, J. M., 2014. Is Organisational Culture a Barrier to Implementing Integrated Urban Water Management in Adelaide?. Journal of the Australian Water Association, 41(8), pp. 27-29.
Lichfield, N., Kettle, P. & Whitbread, M., 1975. Evaluation in the Planning Process. Oxford: Pergamon Press Offices.
Malano, H., Arora, M. & Rathnayaka, K., 2014. Integrated Water Cycle Modelling of the Urban/Peri-urban Continuum. The Security of Water, Food, Energy and Liveability of Cities, Volume 71, pp. 11-26.
Markey, S., Halseth, G. & Manson, D., 2008. Challenging the inevitability of rural decline: Advancing the policy of place in northern British Columbia. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 24, pp. 409-421.
Marlow, D. R., Moglia, M., Cook, S. & Beale, D. J., 2013. Towards sustainable urban water management: A critical reassessment. Water research, Volume 47, pp. 7150-7161.
Marsden Jacob Associates, 2013. Economic viability of recycled water schemes, Brisbane: Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence.
Mathews, T., Lo, A. Y. & Byrne, J. A., 2015. Reconceptualizing green infrastructure for climate change adaptation: Barriers to adoption and drivers for uptake by spatial planners. Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 138, pp. 155-163.
Mees, H. L. P. & Driessen, P. P., 2011. Adaptation to climate change in urban areas: Climate-greening London, Rotterdam, and Toronto. Climate Law, 2(2), pp. 251-280.
Mitchell, V. G., 2006. Applying Integrated Urban Water Management Concepts: A Review of Australian Experience. Environmental Management, 37(5), p. 589 – 605.
Morison, P. J. & Brown, R. R., 2011. Understanding the Nature of Publics and Local Policy
Commitment to Water Sensitive Urban Design. Landscape and Urban Planning, Issue 99, pp. 83-92.
Mouritz, M. & Shepherd, S. J., 2006. Achieving Integrated Urban Water Management via the Planning System in WA. Clayton, Vic, Monash University, pp. 1105 - 1112.
Mukheibir, P., Gallet, D. & Howe, C., 2014. What's getting in the way of a One Water approach to water services planning and management?. Water, pp. 67-73.
OECD, 2011. WATER GOVERNANCE IN OECD COUNTRIES: A MULTI-LEVEL APPROACH, Paris: OECD.
Pearson, L. J., Coggen, A., Proctor, W. & Smith, T. F., 2010. A Sustainable Decision Support Framework for Urban Water Management. Water Resources Management, 24(2), pp. 363-376.
Raadgever, T. G. et al., 2008. Assessing Management Regimes in Transboundary River Basins: Do They Support Adaptive Management?. Ecology and Society, 13(1).
Rauch, W., Seggelke, K., Brown, R. & Krebs, P., 2005. Integrated Approaches in Urban Storm Drainage: Where Do We Stand?. Environmental Management, 35(4), pp. 396-409.
28 Roy, A. H. et al., 2008. Impediments and solutions to sustainable, watershed-scale urban stormwater management: lessons from Australia and the United States. Environmental Management, 42(2), pp.
344-359.
Sendzimir, J. et al., 2008. Assessing the Resilience of a River Management Regime: Informal Learning in a Shadow Network in the Tisza River Basin. Ecology and Society, 13(1).
Sharma, A. K. et al., 2008. Assessing integrated water management options for urban developments – Canberra case study. Urban Water Journal, 5(2), p. 147–159.
Sutherland, A., da Silva Wells, C., Darteh, B. & Butterworth, J., 2012. Researchers as actors in urban water governance? Perspectives on learning alliances as an innovative mechanism for change.
International Journal of Water, 6(3-4), pp. 311-329.
Turner, A. et al., 2016. Recycled water–lessons from Australia on dealing with risk and uncertainty.
Water Practice and Technology, 11(1), pp. 127-138.
Vörösmarty , C. J., Green, P., Salisbury, J. & Lammers, R. B., 2000. Global water resources:
vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science, 289(5477), pp. 284-288.
Vugteveen, P. & Lenders, H. J. R., 2009. The Duality of Integrated Water Management: Science, Policy or both?. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 6(1), pp. 51-67.
Wang, C., Walker, E. & Redmond, J., 2007. Explaining the Lack of Strategic Planning in SMEs: The Importance of Owner Motivation, Perth: Edith Cowan University.
Wong, T. H. F. & Brown, R. R., 2009. The water sensitive city: principles for practice. Water Science &
Technology, 60(3), p. 673 – 682.
Lachlan Guthrie – PhD Thesis Page 140